Help end medical misogyny. Sign our petition.

Help end medical misogyny.
Sign our petition.

Sign the petition

Please or to access all these features

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

3 year old injured by crocodiles - man arrested

409 replies

DecisionTime123 · 18/06/2026 19:18

So I assume the man deliberately placed the child into the crocodile enclosure. Psychopath? Sounds similar to the man who threw the boy off the Tate?

(And also, not connected but these places are shit for the animals and should be shut down)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czx50n2vj74o

(& apologies if thread already started?)

A crocodile with its mouth open  in an enclosure near a wooden walkway going through the centre

Man arrested after boy injured in zoo crocodile enclosure

A 30-year-old man has been arrested after a child ended up in a crocodile enclosure at a farm zoo.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czx50n2vj74o

OP posts:
Holidayhooha · Yesterday 23:45

pollyhemlock · Yesterday 22:51

Well actually they are get out of jail cards . If someone is learning disabled to the extent that they lack mental capacity then they are not subject to the same legal sanctions as someone of normal capacity. For obvious reasons. It’s why we don’t put very young children through criminal proceedings. I agree that there’s a case for reviewing safeguarding procedures in cases involving mentally disabled adults though in my experience they are already quite stringent. Always subject to human error though.

We don’t give young children the same rights as adults due to lack of capacity, eg, driving a car, so why should some have a get out of jail card on the one hand and full adult rights on the other? Rights and responsibilities should be balanced and if an individual cannot accept adult responsibilities they should not be accorded full adult rights. Look at the collateral damage of his right to a day at the zoo.

Kirbert2 · Yesterday 23:53

Holidayhooha · Yesterday 23:45

We don’t give young children the same rights as adults due to lack of capacity, eg, driving a car, so why should some have a get out of jail card on the one hand and full adult rights on the other? Rights and responsibilities should be balanced and if an individual cannot accept adult responsibilities they should not be accorded full adult rights. Look at the collateral damage of his right to a day at the zoo.

He likely doesn't have 'full adult rights' in the sense that he potentially isn't capable of driving a car or toileting or dressing himself just like a young toddler.

Oboliskit · Today 00:10

Holidayhooha · Yesterday 23:45

We don’t give young children the same rights as adults due to lack of capacity, eg, driving a car, so why should some have a get out of jail card on the one hand and full adult rights on the other? Rights and responsibilities should be balanced and if an individual cannot accept adult responsibilities they should not be accorded full adult rights. Look at the collateral damage of his right to a day at the zoo.

How is going to the zoo a ‘full adult right’? What are the entire list of ‘full adult rights’ so I can be clear I’m getting all mine.

Holidayhooha · Today 00:12

Oboliskit · Today 00:10

How is going to the zoo a ‘full adult right’? What are the entire list of ‘full adult rights’ so I can be clear I’m getting all mine.

Moving freely in society in public places is a full adult right. Being violent whilst doing so would be reprehensible and penalized , but not if you have a get out of jail card.

StressedSupportWorker · Today 00:14

He won't have full adult rights. Independent adults have control over their finances, they decide where they live, they decide when they get up, they decide what they wear, they decide when they go to bed, they decide how they spend their time, and with whom. As an independent adult, if I want to go to the 24 hour supermarket at 2am because I'm out of chocolate, I can.

In residential care, you get little to none of this. You are woken up by whoever is on shift that morning at the time they think is appropriate. Depending on how good the setting is, you might get to ask for a lie in, because there is a huge gap between what is best practice (letting people have some autonomy over when to get up) and what happens on the ground when CQC inspectors aren't looking. You pick your clothes from what's offered (if the staff can be bothered to follow the care plan that says you get a choice of at least two outfits), you eat breakfast from what the setting provides. Then you sit in an armchair with nothing to do while the carer on shift doomscrolls on their phone. Then it's lunch time. Maybe you get away from your own four walls for a trip outside before dinner.

The trip to the zoo would have been pre-arranged on his behalf as a beneficial activity by the care setting. He may not even have had any input into the decision beyond a staff member saying "would you like to go to the zoo next month"? If you live somewhere like that, you can't say "I want to go to the zoo" and go that day. It will have been arranged around the staffing rota, staff annual leave and the health appointments of anyone else resident at the same setting.

XenoBitch · Today 00:18

Holidayhooha · Yesterday 23:45

We don’t give young children the same rights as adults due to lack of capacity, eg, driving a car, so why should some have a get out of jail card on the one hand and full adult rights on the other? Rights and responsibilities should be balanced and if an individual cannot accept adult responsibilities they should not be accorded full adult rights. Look at the collateral damage of his right to a day at the zoo.

He has a disability that means his brain and cognitive thought processes are not operating at the same age as his body.
He probably has a deprivation of liberty order on him. That basically means he can't just be out and about on his own. But with carers, he absolutely should be allowed out, and allowed to live a life as normal as possible.

BTW, you could be like him one day. Dementia will do that to you too.
My gran changed homes several times because she was violent. In her 80s, she pinned another resident to the floor and gave them black eyes. No police called... what would be the point. Drag her to the police station and put her in the dock on trial?

AlcoholicAntibiotic · Today 00:24

But with carers, he absolutely should be allowed out, and allowed to live a life as normal as possible.

Not if he harms other people.

XenoBitch · Today 00:26

AlcoholicAntibiotic · Today 00:24

But with carers, he absolutely should be allowed out, and allowed to live a life as normal as possible.

Not if he harms other people.

Well that will be the case now.
But if he had not harmed anyone up until now, then should he have been locked up before?

StressedSupportWorker · Today 00:37

AlcoholicAntibiotic · Today 00:24

But with carers, he absolutely should be allowed out, and allowed to live a life as normal as possible.

Not if he harms other people.

Well, obviously not. The setting management and staff on duty have a duty of care to the service user and to people who could be harmed by staff action or inaction. Like other people at the zoo.

No-one was taking him out thinking, "oh he has a right to drop children in with dangerous animals". The two most likely scenarios are that his care plan does not accurately predict his risk to others, or that the staff on duty did not follow it.

Something has gone very wrong somewhere and a child is paying for it. There will be a police investigation and emergency CQC inspection of the care provider. I don't know what they will find, but I guarantee they won't find a piece of paper saying "this adult has the right to seriously injure children", because no-one will have believed that.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page